This question is only concerning optimal settings for quality and playback on WS HDTV (Building a media library on hard drive)
Why is it that under the picture settings before rippings a DVD, the source (i.e 720X480) is often higher than the output (i.e 720X384) set by HB?
I understand that this is what occurs when "keep aspect ratio" is checked. But if unchecked you can bring it back to the sources setting and it then looks slightly stetched. The DVD's orginal setting looks fine when in my DVD player displayed on the wide screen tv yet Handbrake shows the image stretched.
I need to understand if I should just leave the aspect ratio checked before I begin ripping my DVD collection or I should bring it back to the original "source output" and disregard how Handbrake displays this in the preview because it will look fine on my wide screen tv in the end.
Optimal Picture Settings
Re: Optimal Picture Settings
Anamorphismmrmugno wrote:Why is it that under the picture settings before rippings a DVD, the source (i.e 720X480) is often higher than the output (i.e 720X384) set by HB?
it's surprising how much it's worth keeping the full frame. I use full frame anamorphic CRF quality 60%, vaguely 1.5-2GB per 2 hour movie. Anything 60%-65% produces good results in terms of quality and filesize. Make sure CRF is on when using the constant quality.
(I'd generally only reduce the resolution for iPod etc, or when using a quality less than 60%, maybe only if less than 55% or even 50%, I haven't been able to check this yet. And maybe if I'm deinterlacing.)
(I'd generally only reduce the resolution for iPod etc, or when using a quality less than 60%, maybe only if less than 55% or even 50%, I haven't been able to check this yet. And maybe if I'm deinterlacing.)
why bother deinterlacing? this does not produce noticeable improved output for my files. is there a benefit i am unaware of to deinterlace when ripping for high quality tv playback under H.264, 1500 bitrate, same as source fps encoding?
additionally, with anamorphism, shall i set the picture output to maxim size and let anamorphism take care of the distortion so i get the highest quality picture?
thanks for your help guys.
additionally, with anamorphism, shall i set the picture output to maxim size and let anamorphism take care of the distortion so i get the highest quality picture?
thanks for your help guys.
Deinterlacing: well, it depends.
. If it's not actually interlaced in the first place (most movies, Scrubs, Seinfeldt, etc) you should never deinterlace cause you lose half the lines in MF/HB.
. If it is indeed interlaced you should always deinterlace if you are doing to change the number of lines (changing width would be OK). e.g. if you used 576x432 it would have lots of int erlacing artefacts and look much worse, and be bloated in filesize if you are using constant quality
If you are keeping the number of lines (e.g. anamporphic):
. it is subjective. interlaced video is more complex than after deinterlacing, so encoding it has to compress it more (=more encoding artefacts) or make the file bigger. so it's not good at low bitrates - you would be better to deinterlace, or it might not make much of a difference (i.e. look bad either way). but if the bitrate/quality is high enough (e.g. CRF q 0.55 and above) you can get a better quality output file by leaving it interlaced.
However, interlaced video needs to be displayed properly to look good, either by viewing it on a device that uses interlacing, such as an "old-fashioned" (CRT) TV, or by selecting a good deinterlacing algorithm in your playback program -- I like VLC's Linear deinterlace setting, which looks much better on my laptop screen than MF/HB's Discard deinterlacing.
. I am told, by jbrjake, a moderator, that MF/HB doesn't support interlaced video -- he says it just outputs it as progressed (but without deinterlacing), and that this is a bit inefficient. I still prefer it to deinterlacing though, and it looks good/better in VLC with Linear deinterlacing.
So, my approach is to only deinterlace when I'm changing the number of lines or using a low enough bitrate for it to look bad anyway. I find that interlaced content - episodes of Friends - are quite jerky after deinterlacing. (Discard Deinterlaced content is nowhere near as good as content that was produced non-interlaced in the first place, both in terms of sharpness in still areas and fluidity, but interlaced content can be better than non-interlaced.)
Oh yeah, so for iPod you should always deinterlace interlaced content! (or it's bloated and lower quality!)
Is your 1500kbps single pass or 2-pass? Why not use CRF constant quality?
. If it's not actually interlaced in the first place (most movies, Scrubs, Seinfeldt, etc) you should never deinterlace cause you lose half the lines in MF/HB.
. If it is indeed interlaced you should always deinterlace if you are doing to change the number of lines (changing width would be OK). e.g. if you used 576x432 it would have lots of int erlacing artefacts and look much worse, and be bloated in filesize if you are using constant quality
If you are keeping the number of lines (e.g. anamporphic):
. it is subjective. interlaced video is more complex than after deinterlacing, so encoding it has to compress it more (=more encoding artefacts) or make the file bigger. so it's not good at low bitrates - you would be better to deinterlace, or it might not make much of a difference (i.e. look bad either way). but if the bitrate/quality is high enough (e.g. CRF q 0.55 and above) you can get a better quality output file by leaving it interlaced.
However, interlaced video needs to be displayed properly to look good, either by viewing it on a device that uses interlacing, such as an "old-fashioned" (CRT) TV, or by selecting a good deinterlacing algorithm in your playback program -- I like VLC's Linear deinterlace setting, which looks much better on my laptop screen than MF/HB's Discard deinterlacing.
. I am told, by jbrjake, a moderator, that MF/HB doesn't support interlaced video -- he says it just outputs it as progressed (but without deinterlacing), and that this is a bit inefficient. I still prefer it to deinterlacing though, and it looks good/better in VLC with Linear deinterlacing.
So, my approach is to only deinterlace when I'm changing the number of lines or using a low enough bitrate for it to look bad anyway. I find that interlaced content - episodes of Friends - are quite jerky after deinterlacing. (Discard Deinterlaced content is nowhere near as good as content that was produced non-interlaced in the first place, both in terms of sharpness in still areas and fluidity, but interlaced content can be better than non-interlaced.)
Oh yeah, so for iPod you should always deinterlace interlaced content! (or it's bloated and lower quality!)
I think anamorphic mode disables resizing anyway. I use the command line version and just don't set a size. If you're keeping interlacing, you may want to turn off autocropping to keep 480 lines (NTSC) or 576 lines (PAL) so it wouldn't need to be stretched slightly for playback on that hardware (I assume the lines would then not line up quite right).with anamorphism, shall i set the picture output to maxim size and let anamorphism take care of the distortion so i get the highest quality picture?
Is your 1500kbps single pass or 2-pass? Why not use CRF constant quality?
CRF? Is this the bitrate I am setting?
it's 2 pass and i use 1500 bitrate, which roughly equates to 70-75% on most movies. this is sufficient for my 32" widescreen because any increase is barely noticeable.
the reason i use these settings most of all is to keep all files under 1.5G because my media library is on my hard drive - limited space.
in the end i'm a simpleton with little knowledge or understanding of what you mentioned above. i'm just looking to transfer my media onto my Mac, with great quality and <1.5G file size. Exact replica is not necessary.
I really appreciate the time you took to explain this but it seems for someone with moderate understanding, MediaFork has complicated things a bit more in the decision making process. I'm sure the new features are desired and genius, not to take away from the developers work, but in the end, the true success of software is based on functionality and ease of use (for dumb asses like me).
I jdo read alot of the posts but so much goes over my head between technical vocab and various opinions. I managed to find my perfect settings for HB and now i need to apply this anamorphic thing with MF...sigh - guess i'll just always apply anamorphic and set the picture to 720x480. I'll avoid deinterlacing. Makes sense to do this overall?
it's 2 pass and i use 1500 bitrate, which roughly equates to 70-75% on most movies. this is sufficient for my 32" widescreen because any increase is barely noticeable.
the reason i use these settings most of all is to keep all files under 1.5G because my media library is on my hard drive - limited space.
in the end i'm a simpleton with little knowledge or understanding of what you mentioned above. i'm just looking to transfer my media onto my Mac, with great quality and <1.5G file size. Exact replica is not necessary.
I really appreciate the time you took to explain this but it seems for someone with moderate understanding, MediaFork has complicated things a bit more in the decision making process. I'm sure the new features are desired and genius, not to take away from the developers work, but in the end, the true success of software is based on functionality and ease of use (for dumb asses like me).
I jdo read alot of the posts but so much goes over my head between technical vocab and various opinions. I managed to find my perfect settings for HB and now i need to apply this anamorphic thing with MF...sigh - guess i'll just always apply anamorphic and set the picture to 720x480. I'll avoid deinterlacing. Makes sense to do this overall?
-
roundy
There is a simple reason the source resolution is higher than the output.
The resolution for a standard DVD is 720x480. However, for most movies not all the lines are used. This is to create the anamorphic widescreen video. In your example the part of the picture with any actual information in it is 720x384 which gives you a ratio of 1.87:1 - just about 16:9.
What the DVD authors do is encode the video with this resolution and then squish it a bit. When the video is decoded by your DVD player it is "unsquished" to completely fill your widescreen TV.
HB/MF doesn't need to do any unsquishing because it converting the video for playback on a computer monitor (supposedly), where anamorphic doesn't exist. So to save space, it discards the black "letterbox" areas of the original DVD video.
This is really simplifying things but that's why the numbers don't match.
I also use no-deinterlace and 1500bitrate for my DVD's of TV Shows. For movies, I use 2000 bitrate. Not sure why, it's just some numbers I picked. I find that deinterlacing interlaced content with HB/MF produces video with a lot of jaggies. However, interlaced content results in files with the "blinds" effect. But I find the blinds effect to be less annoying than the jaggies, so I stuck with non-deinterlace.
The resolution for a standard DVD is 720x480. However, for most movies not all the lines are used. This is to create the anamorphic widescreen video. In your example the part of the picture with any actual information in it is 720x384 which gives you a ratio of 1.87:1 - just about 16:9.
What the DVD authors do is encode the video with this resolution and then squish it a bit. When the video is decoded by your DVD player it is "unsquished" to completely fill your widescreen TV.
HB/MF doesn't need to do any unsquishing because it converting the video for playback on a computer monitor (supposedly), where anamorphic doesn't exist. So to save space, it discards the black "letterbox" areas of the original DVD video.
This is really simplifying things but that's why the numbers don't match.
I also use no-deinterlace and 1500bitrate for my DVD's of TV Shows. For movies, I use 2000 bitrate. Not sure why, it's just some numbers I picked. I find that deinterlacing interlaced content with HB/MF produces video with a lot of jaggies. However, interlaced content results in files with the "blinds" effect. But I find the blinds effect to be less annoying than the jaggies, so I stuck with non-deinterlace.
Great explanation! Thank you.
I also posted further questions regarding the deinterlaciing and anamorphic issues under the Support forums: MediaFork - Picture Settings - Short & Simple.
Specifically I used anamorphic which gave a good size without distortion but the damn "blinds effect" was there because I did not deinterlace (Movie: Children of Men).
I will try to deinterlace but the jagged effect sounds worse from your explanation.
I may just avoid touching these settings all together and leave it at keep aspect ratio
I also posted further questions regarding the deinterlaciing and anamorphic issues under the Support forums: MediaFork - Picture Settings - Short & Simple.
Specifically I used anamorphic which gave a good size without distortion but the damn "blinds effect" was there because I did not deinterlace (Movie: Children of Men).
I will try to deinterlace but the jagged effect sounds worse from your explanation.
I may just avoid touching these settings all together and leave it at keep aspect ratio
No! No! No!
Roudy said:
- (the times not to use anamorphic are: for iPod, which doesn't support it; for AppleTV or QuickTime, which don't support the current implementation; for lower bitrates/sizes where the full resolution isn't necessary.) The key point is that not using anamorphic video reduces the quality a lot (the exception is progressive PAL 4:3 where it is 576 lines vs 544, not a big difference if it's not interlaced).
- for a 2.35:1 movie you would get only about 720x304 lines without anamorphic, and around 720x360 with anamorphic on (a big improvement!).
- some movies do actually avoid anamorphic and just sqush the lines, but it greatly reduces the quality. Even movies from the 1950s looks better with the extra lines!
So, for you I would recommend CRF (Constant Rate Factor) which maintain a constant quality. It's definitely the way to go when space is an issue but you don't need it to be a specific size (e.g 700MB for a CD-R). I would start with CRF (select this in the GUI) quality level 65% and see what you think -- it looks great to me. Remember than movies will vary a lot in size -- e.g. vaguely 1.3-2GB per 2 hours. I use only 60% at the moment, but then I use PAL, which is 720x576 lines so it should be bigger (I expect).
** Remember that if you deinterlace on playback using VLC and Linear it will look great and have no "blinds" effect or jaggies!
(This is what I do. Try it!)
Roudy said:
No! Most movies use almost all of the lines, regardless of whether they are 4:3, 16:9, 1.85:1. The only ones that should have many black bars are ones that are 2.35:1 or unusual ratios. This is basically what the whole anamorphic thing means! A movie that is 16:9 is stored as 720x480 on the DVD, but this gives it a ratio of 1.5:1, so it has to be stretched to 16:9 (=1.78:1) on playback. The alternative would be to squah it vertically back into shape, losing lines, and get 720x400 (~1.78:1) or 720x384 (~1.85:1). By default most programs, including HB, squash the lines, reducing the quality. You should almost always turn on the Anamorphic option. And if it isn't anamorphic it wouldn't/shouldn't make any difference anyway!The resolution for a standard DVD is 720x480. However, for most movies not all the lines are used. This is to create the anamorphic widescreen video. In your example the part of the picture with any actual information in it is 720x384 which gives you a ratio of 1.87:1 - just about 16:9.
- (the times not to use anamorphic are: for iPod, which doesn't support it; for AppleTV or QuickTime, which don't support the current implementation; for lower bitrates/sizes where the full resolution isn't necessary.) The key point is that not using anamorphic video reduces the quality a lot (the exception is progressive PAL 4:3 where it is 576 lines vs 544, not a big difference if it's not interlaced).
- for a 2.35:1 movie you would get only about 720x304 lines without anamorphic, and around 720x360 with anamorphic on (a big improvement!).
- some movies do actually avoid anamorphic and just sqush the lines, but it greatly reduces the quality. Even movies from the 1950s looks better with the extra lines!
CRF is an alternative to setting a bitrate; it lets HB/MF decide what bitrate to use as it's going along, because it can make a very good guess at how much bitrate is needed and where/when! This also means that a second pass is not required because it allocated the bets very well the first time -- so it's lots faster too! (maybe 50% faster.) Second, movies and TV programs vary a lot in complexity between different movies, shows and episodes. For example, Sweet November is a relatively low action movie that is very clear with few artefacts, noise or graininess. It converts very well & I got 1.4GB. With the same settings, stargate (high action & effects), which is only about 5-10% longer took up over 2GB, even though it was only 3/4 of the resoltion. (Those were obsolete settings so I don't mention them now.)CRF? Is this the bitrate I am setting?
it's 2 pass and i use 1500 bitrate, which roughly equates to 70-75% on most movies. this is sufficient for my 32" widescreen because any increase is barely noticeable.
So, for you I would recommend CRF (Constant Rate Factor) which maintain a constant quality. It's definitely the way to go when space is an issue but you don't need it to be a specific size (e.g 700MB for a CD-R). I would start with CRF (select this in the GUI) quality level 65% and see what you think -- it looks great to me. Remember than movies will vary a lot in size -- e.g. vaguely 1.3-2GB per 2 hours. I use only 60% at the moment, but then I use PAL, which is 720x576 lines so it should be bigger (I expect).
** Remember that if you deinterlace on playback using VLC and Linear it will look great and have no "blinds" effect or jaggies!
(This is what I do. Try it!)
Last edited by Leo on Sat Apr 07, 2007 5:41 pm, edited 2 times in total.
That's a very dangerous thing to say without mentioning two things:Leo wrote:You should almost always turn on the Anamorphic option.
1. iPod incompatible (not an issue here).
2. Current release is a total pain with QuickTime. Next release will work properly.
Also, do bear in mind the massively variable size of constant quality output - which is a concern, as was mentioned earlier. However, it is likely to produce the best results for a single-pass encode, if you can live with that.
Unsure about your second point...what issues with Quicktime? I would love to explore these setbacks.
Also, using the variable size does not output that large of a file size in the long run. This is strictly for media library building and viewing on WS HDTV.
Here's my logic:
I was one to encode at 1500 for all titles - some of which came out perfect, some needed a higher bitrate and some could've done with a lower. All in all, setting the encoding to 60, 65 or 70% results in the optimal encoding for the given title, thus saving you space on low movement films (non action) and providing great quality for the fast paced thrillers.
I'm sure if you took the size average of all titles encoded under CR 65% as per the recommendation above as compared with a 1500 bitrate setting, it would only prove to be slightly higher but with appropriate quality for each movie.
This is not in reference to TV seasons on DVD or any other non-movie DVD. Also, I'm sure it's not this simple as problems arise on the technical side of things or with a given DVD (new Sony releases), but to establish a rule of thumb for newbies like me, I found his post perfect!
Thanks again.
Also, using the variable size does not output that large of a file size in the long run. This is strictly for media library building and viewing on WS HDTV.
Here's my logic:
I was one to encode at 1500 for all titles - some of which came out perfect, some needed a higher bitrate and some could've done with a lower. All in all, setting the encoding to 60, 65 or 70% results in the optimal encoding for the given title, thus saving you space on low movement films (non action) and providing great quality for the fast paced thrillers.
I'm sure if you took the size average of all titles encoded under CR 65% as per the recommendation above as compared with a 1500 bitrate setting, it would only prove to be slightly higher but with appropriate quality for each movie.
This is not in reference to TV seasons on DVD or any other non-movie DVD. Also, I'm sure it's not this simple as problems arise on the technical side of things or with a given DVD (new Sony releases), but to establish a rule of thumb for newbies like me, I found his post perfect!
Thanks again.
Basically don't bother with anamorphic on this release if you want to use it with an Apple product unless you're happy messing about and re-exporting from QuickTime Pro. If you want to know the details it's mentioned in several places on this forum.mrmugno wrote:Unsure about your second point...what issues with Quicktime? I would love to explore these setbacks.
This user is clueless enough without you confusing him more with comments about development builds. Anything encoded with 0.8.0b1 in anamorphic mode will not display properly in QuickTime.UberDuper wrote:In my brief, recent experience, anamorphic content encoded in HB plays just fine in quicktime and on the appleTV.
Fair enough, hawkman; although I was talking in the context mrmugno set in his first post:
So is it pretty much only the AppleTV where this is a big problem? Has no-one come up with a quick-fix for this apple anamorphic issue? e.g. where you can select all your ripped files and click "fix anamorphic", or drag-drop them onto a wee prog?
...and he is using a PC. I was meaning that for achieving this he should generally be using the anamorphic setting. Besides, I assume he's using x264 non-baseline so it'd be iPod incompatible anyway. I didn't really think of him using mp4 as the container rather than avi. Also if he were using a mac he could use VLC i would assume.This question is only concerning optimal settings for quality and playback on WS HDTV (Building a media library on hard drive)
Why is it that under the picture settings before rippings a DVD, the source (i.e 720X480) is often higher than the output (i.e 720X384) set by HB?
So is it pretty much only the AppleTV where this is a big problem? Has no-one come up with a quick-fix for this apple anamorphic issue? e.g. where you can select all your ripped files and click "fix anamorphic", or drag-drop them onto a wee prog?
Leo,
We're talking the difference between the general and the specific here. The specific is that the first issue definitely doesn't apply here (as, indeed, I noted in my original post), and the warning about QuickTime may or may not. It's still worth mentioning.
The general is that these issues could be applicable to anyone reading this thread, and it would be irresponsible not to bring them up.
Finally, as I mentioned if you want to know the specifics of the QuickTime + anamorphic saga, it's easy to find on this forum. Short story for those with similarly short attention spans: it doesn't work this release, it will in the future.
We're talking the difference between the general and the specific here. The specific is that the first issue definitely doesn't apply here (as, indeed, I noted in my original post), and the warning about QuickTime may or may not. It's still worth mentioning.
The general is that these issues could be applicable to anyone reading this thread, and it would be irresponsible not to bring them up.
Finally, as I mentioned if you want to know the specifics of the QuickTime + anamorphic saga, it's easy to find on this forum. Short story for those with similarly short attention spans: it doesn't work this release, it will in the future.
now i'm confused
Initially i thought only olde tv shows should be deinterlaced to stop the blinds effect - is that not accurate? Since i won't rip everything twice and i want to have it available for my appletv and my ipod - i'm sticking to a resize width of 640 - no anamorphic - and i was doing a 1500 abr with 2 pass. The results were good, but can they be better - encoding time is not so much of a gripe for me... any improvements you can offer are appreciated- as is some clarification on deinterlacing. It was my understanding that since i use a hi def plasma for the appletv i would not want to deinterlace compared to an old crt.... correct?
nevermind i just found the wiki - sorry.
Any other advice on eeking out the best possible picture regardless of size that will play on the ipod is most welcome.. cheers.
nevermind i just found the wiki - sorry.
Any other advice on eeking out the best possible picture regardless of size that will play on the ipod is most welcome.. cheers.
Re: now i'm confused
The original poster has no clue what he's talking about. You are entirely correct--old tv shows are where you're going to find interlacing 90% of the time. Films like Children of Men are 24fps and do not need deinterlacing, though sometimes "behind the scenes" extra features shot on video will need it. Only apply it if you see combing in the preview frames. It has nothing to do with what the output device is going to be.h00ligan wrote:Initially i thought only olde tv shows should be deinterlaced to stop the blinds effect - is that not accurate?
In the next beta, or if you're using the svn, it's possible to get better quality for the iPod if you want to encode slower. If you're using MF 0.8.0b1, you're getting the best quality you can with the settings you're using now.
h00ligan. yes, those will give you excellent results in quality within the constraints of iPod compatibility, and as jbrjake (a moderator) says, only deinterlace when you can see the combing (interlacing artefacts) (otherwise you reduce the quality because half the lines are lost and the remaining ones are doubled to make up the resolution).
If you are going to be viewing it on a high quality TV, you may wish to consider doing a high quality anamophic version for computer or AppleTV viewing and a low quality version for iPod viewing (which often encodes around four times faster than the high quality one). This is what I do. I use 320x240 x264b30 CRF q 0.6 (constant quality 60%) for iPod, which looks great, typically vaguely 200MB per hour, and 720x576 (or 720x480 in the USA / NTSC) x264 CRF q 0.6 for PC viewing, typically vaguely 600-1000MB per hour. CRF encodes in about two thirds of the time as 2-pass too, and is almost the same quality for size, so this should be faster overall. It's lots better quality on my PC, and lets me get more on my iPod too!
If you are going to be viewing it on a high quality TV, you may wish to consider doing a high quality anamophic version for computer or AppleTV viewing and a low quality version for iPod viewing (which often encodes around four times faster than the high quality one). This is what I do. I use 320x240 x264b30 CRF q 0.6 (constant quality 60%) for iPod, which looks great, typically vaguely 200MB per hour, and 720x576 (or 720x480 in the USA / NTSC) x264 CRF q 0.6 for PC viewing, typically vaguely 600-1000MB per hour. CRF encodes in about two thirds of the time as 2-pass too, and is almost the same quality for size, so this should be faster overall. It's lots better quality on my PC, and lets me get more on my iPod too!